Not really, not entirely, but some discussion on the previous post about how the powers that be in this nation are now completely off the rails, and just when it was that this nation lost it’s way, prompted me to extrapolate a bit on the broader subject of conspiracies. The nation, of course, was in many ways off the rails from the founding, if you are even halfway convinced by Christopher Ferrara’s most important work, Liberty: The God that Failed, but I left a comment wherein I talked about how recent study has caused me to conclude that my previous belief – that conspiracy theories are almost always false – was itself a result of a deliberate effort by the CIA to discredit those who opposed their varying agendas. That is to say, it was the CIA itself that coined the phrase “conspiracy theory” in the 60s to squash those asking uncomfortable questions about the JFK assassination, the Vietnam War, morally questionable (or downright damnable) US activities in many countries, etc., etc……..and in fact came up with all the arguments against conspiracy theories I have tended to believe – that conspiracies are extremely hard to conduct, that they are impossible to keep secret, that to do X so many people would have to be involved that word would certainly get out, that “the real world doesn’t work that way,” among other things. [Sorry for those of you who get posts by e-mail, I wrote this in a huge hurry and really botched the grammar in this first paragraph. The first few sentences didn’t make much sense. Mea maxima culpa]

I had swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. To my comment:

One thing I learned recently, which was fascinating and has caused me to re-examine my own previously held notions, is that it was the CIA itself that coined the phrase “conspiracy theory” in response to continued doubts over the JFK assassination and other scandals of the 60s. I wouldn’t say I believe in black helicopters, the Illuminati, chemtrails, or anything quite like that just yet, but it is patently obvious at this point to anyone with an ounce of sense that there is a massive, ongoing conspiracy against conservatism, Trump, liberty, Christianity, and the conception of this nation as founded, or what was long presented as the conception of this nation, that has become so clumsy and obvious of late that it can no longer be ignored, but which in fact goes back decades if not much longer. And yes the US was wrongly founded from the beginning, in being not based on Catholicism (and in many respects hostile to the Faith as it was certainly practiced then, and had been since the early Church), and in being the product of a small dedicated group that sought the overthrow of the existing economic/political/cultural power structure and its replacement with another structure – with themselves in the positions of power. In other words, a conspiracy, and a successful one.

If you read the sad, US-influenced political and cultural history of Mexico since 1800, you will find almost exactly the same thing. A small cabal subverting the will of the vast majority of souls and imposing a hostile and alien construct upon the masses, for their own personal benefit.

And then there is the example of the Church, where again a relatively small cabal, infinitely aided by sympathetic, timid, and/or feckless leadership, has seized control and imposed a radically different construct on the (initially?) largely unwilling masses, and even convinced them of how good and wonderful all these changes have been. Just recently I had an exchange with some septuagenarians, very early boomers who were at just that “right” age at Vatican II, who are just utterly convinced of how wrong and awful the pre-conciliar Church was, and how wonderful all the changes have been. When I presented contradictory evidence, the implosion of vocations, tens of millions of souls lost to the Church in this country alone, etc., etc., they said those were POSITIVE developments, that it made absolutely no difference what “church” one belonged to and those people were probably better off outside the Church, given all the evils like the boy-rape epidemic and collapse of catechesis that have resulted (and that religious life was a crock, that it was a medieval concept for stuffing unmarried daughters and Jesus freaks into veritable asylums). There is absolutely no arguing with these people, no quoting of Scripture, no relation of the wisdom of the Fathers, no statistical data that can possibly move them from their position that Vatican II was an unalloyed good and what existed before an unalloyed evil. These people are wholesale devotees of the new religion foisted on the Church in the 60s. They only remain Catholic themselves for sentimental reasons, or, more demoniacally, to continue the work of destruction (and some of them have been long involved in just that).

These are just a handful of examples. I still do not believe that history in toto is more or less a collection of conspiracies successful and failed, but that doesn’t mean that extremely influential events have not been developed and decided by a (relatively) small group working to a particular purpose.

So get me a tinfoil hat and call me a conspiracy theorist, but honest reading of history reveals that a great many extremely influential events have been the result of a small cadre of dedicated activists, generally working in secret (see France, 1789). IOW, a conspiracy.

And I would say that all the cultural/moral travesties we have witnessed over the past 50-odd years are the result of a deliberate conspiracy aimed at destroying Western civilization and, in particular, the Church, in order to bring about a sexularist socialist “utopia.” I mean, transgender bathrooms, really? or arguing that guys (it’s always guys) who say no to men dressed up as women are hateful bigots? For real? Like that just happened organically, naturally? Riiiiiiight.

The Fatima Center/Our Lady’s Army of Advocates will be holding a conference at the DFW airport Hyatt Regency March 9-11 2018. A bevy of fantastic speakers are lined up, including this blog’s favorite Father Michael Rodriguez, Fr. Paul McDonald, Father Isaac Mary Relyea, Chris Ferrara, Michael Matt, and many other top speakers. Rates for the conference vary, the rate for the entire weekend is $270 which includes meals but not lodging, but walk-in rates starting at $20 are available for the main Saturday conference, which, yay! The Sunday conference is also only $20 if you brown bag it. What a great Lenten retreat! I pray my wife and I and perhaps some of the kids are able to attend, it should be a fantastic event.

The flyer is below. The complete list of speakers is here. Father Rodriguez is mostly speaking on Sunday, for those with a particular interest in hearing him, though I’m certain the entire conference will be wonderful and well worth attending. We should be able to make at least one of the days. The rest of the conference schedule is here.

This conference is not just for locals. Come in from Waco, Austin, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, El Paso, and much further afield! If you do plan to attend, please leave a comment and we can try to set up a meeting if you want. I’m sure I’ll/we’ll be at least one of the days.

What a blessed event for our area and dioceses. Though Mass will be offered each day of the conference and I’m certain the speakers will be quite busy, it would be wonderful if any of them could take a short trip over to Irving and drop by Mater Dei. I know their presence would be most appreciated, and it might be interesting for them to see such a large traditional parish. We’ll see.

I will post additional reminders and announcements as the event nears. If any of the organizers would like any particular aspects advertised, don’t hesitate to leave a comment or contact me at larryr103@gmail.com. I’m eager to spread the word on this great catechetical and social activity.

There will be a public discussion – a sort of debate, I guess – on the matter of how to respond to the current, absolutely unprecedented (in recorded history) Bishop of Rome we are confronted with sponsored by the University of Dallas tomorrow, Wed Jan 24 at 7:30 pm. The discussion is between Ross Douthat of the New York Slimes Times and extreme liberal Austin Ivereigh, and is moderated by journalist John Allen. So, basically, two leftists against a moderately conservative neo – the Left never appreciates a fair fight (as Jordan Peterson’s utter destruction of a British feminist last week demonstrated).

Here’s a blurb on the discussion –

UD will be hosting a public discussion of the current papacy this Wednesday (the 24th) at 7:30 pm in the Moody Performance Hall in downtown Dallas. It will be between Ross Douthat of the NYT and British journalist Austen Ivereigh, moderated by John Allen. These are three of the most prominent Catholic journalists in the English-speaking world, and we are very excited to have them here in Dallas. [Ivereigh is a close associate of the extremely progressive former Cardinal of Westminster Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, and basically gloated about the St. Gallen mafia and their role in enthroning Francis is a recent book]

This will be the first time in this country that one of Francis’s defenders (Ivereigh) and one of his critics (Douthat) have engaged each other face-to-face in public. Their moderator, John Allen, is probably the most well-known Vatican journalist in the world. [but definitely has a liberal bent, though less obvious than many of his confreres in the mainstream Catholic media. So it’s basically two against one]

We promise a fascinating and enlightening discussion, and I encourage all ICONers to attend. Tickets are $10 (free to UD faculty/staff/students).

I’ve got a wife with strep and probably bronchitis after nearly two weeks of flu, and several sick kids. So, no way I will attend. Having said that, part of me is interested to see what Douthat has to say, though I suspect I already know it. He is something of a critic of Francis, though hardly so thorough or penetrating as more traditional critics. Nevertheless, the interplay between the apologist Ivereigh and the critic Douthat could be interesting, though I doubt Allen provides anything like a level playing field, which will be maddening.

The thing is, what I think about this pope – Bishop of Rome, whatever – is pretty much settled. He is what he is. Goodness, as a man who understands the importance of gesture and media coverage, giving a pontifical medal to a rabid, murderous pro-abort the week of the March for Life in the US speaks for itself. He is pope, somehow, though I don’t understand, and God has allowed this for some reason I don’t understand, but I cannot see how Francis can be described as Catholic. He is a leftist ideologue with a wicked mean streak projecting an insincere joviality and the most publicity seeking “humility” in the history of ever. Much of that could be forgiven, however, if he did not so obviously loathe both the Faith and those who hold it. The problem is not with a pope with personal character failings. There have been plenty of those, and the Church weathered them just fine. The problem is a pope who is patently at war with the Faith.

At any rate, the tix (general admission only) are $5, so it’s a fairly cheap night out. Plan on another $10 or so for parking at least. I hope some video is shot and it shows up on Youtube. I am sort of interested in this debate to see where it goes, or rather, how far Douthat is willing to go in a hostile setting. He’s OK on some topics.

If any readers attend, leave a comment on your impressions. I’d appreciate it.

I think kudos to UD, for having the guts to host this debate, and even permit some criticism of Francis, muted though it may be? Of course, harsh criticism of popes from the Left has been not only permitted, but the central pillar of Catholic higher education around the world and especially in the West for decades, but this time it’s coming from the “wrong” side, the damnable right wingers.

This news is almost a month old, but I think the implications are plain – once again, a leftist ecclesiastic demanding a “poorer church,” a “church of accompaniment” – has been found personally enriching himself at Church expense. Or, at least, there is substantial evidence of such. Even more, this enrichment seems to be directly tied to personal immorality of the type practiced in Sodom and Gomorrah, and seems to make plain why these leftist cardinals and other apparatchiks in the Church seek to implode the current moral edifice of the Faith, and replace it with one that is conducive to progressive mores.

There is a long article below, but the implications are damning, both for Rodriguez-Maradiaga, and for Francis, who has apparently sat on this information for over 6 months while deciding how to treat with one of his closest advisers and allies (my emphasis and comments):

When he finished reading the inquiry drafted by the apostolic envoy he himself had sent to Honduras last May, Pope Francis’ hands went up to his skullcap. He had just found out that his friend and main councilor — powerful cardinal Oscar Maradiaga, a staunch supporter of a poor and pauperist Church and coordinator of the Council of Cardinals after he appointed him in 2013 — had received over the years from the Catholic University of Tegucigalpa around 41,600 US dollars a month, with an additional 64,200 dollars bonus in December.Bergoglio had yet to learn that several witnesses, both ecclesiastical and secular, were accusing Maradiaga of investments in some companies in London topping a 1,2 million dollars that later vanished into thin air, or that the Court of Auditors of the small Central American nation was investigating a flow of large sums of money from the Honduran government to the Foundation for Education and Social Communication and to the Suyapa Foundation, both foundations of the local Church and therefore depending on Maradiaga himself.

“The Pope is sad and saddened, but also very determined at discovering the truth,” people of his entourage at Santa Marta, his residency, explain. [Uh huh. Is that why this was not made public for over 6 months, and in fact required investigative journalism (as in, not a Vatican press release) to uncover? Can you imagine the hue and cry if this had occurred under Benedict, with one of his closest advisers and supporters?] He wants to know every item of the investigation Argentine bishop Jorge Pedro Casaretto conducted in Honduras, on top, of course, of the final destination of the jaw-dropping sums of money obtained by the cardinal. Just in one year, 2015, as shown in an internal university report L’Espresso obtained, the cardinal received almost 600,000 dollars, a sum that according to some sources he collected for a decade in his capacity as “Grand Chancellor” of the university. However, some other rather unpleasant items account for the rest of the sums he received according to Bishop Casaretto’s report. The pope’s trustworthy person put down on paper the serious accusations many witnesses brought forward (the audits totaled around fifty witnesses and included administrative staff of the diocese and of the university, priests, seminarians and the cardinal’s driver and secretary) also against the Auxiliary Bishop of Tegucigalpa, Juan José Pineda, among the most loyal in Maradiaga’s inner circle and de facto his deputy in Central America. [We will learn just how close Rodriguez and Pineda are later on]

After studying the dossier he received directly six months ago, Pope Francis assigned to himself all final decisions to be made. [Because of course he did. Makes it easier to bury the unpleasant news. As Rorate has noted, Rodriguez Maradiaga was absolutely key in securing Francis’ election in 2013, and may well have used copious distribution of funds from his leadership of Caritas International to do so – at least, that is the implication, which no one in the media seems interested in investigating]

……..The accusations are many: “Some expenses go to close friends of Pineda, like a Mexican who calls himself ‘Father Erick’, but who never took his vows,” said a missionary. “The real name of the man is Erick Cravioto Fajardo. He lived for years in an apartment adjacent to that of the cardinal at Villa Iris. Pineda, who lived with him under the same roof, recently bought him a downtown apartment and a car. The money, we fear, came from university funds or from the diocese. We denounced this close and unseemly relationship also to the Vatican………[“Close and unseemly.” I think we can understand just what that means in this disastrous era of sodomitical penetration deep into the bowels of the Church – so to speak. So at least some of this pilfered money is going to the lover and buddy of Maradiaga’s protege and closest supporter, who just happens to live next door to the Cardinal. But we don’t need any investigation of a “gay mafia” in the Church, right Francis? Unbelievable.]

The witnesses envoy Casaretto audited talked also about investments to the tune of millions gone catastrophically sour: Maradiaga supposedly transferred large amounts of the diocese’s funds to some financial companies in London, like Leman Wealth Management (whose owner is one Youssry Henien, as the registers of the Company House of England and Wales show). Now part of the money entrusted (and deposited in accounts in German banks) seem to have vanished.

There is more to the story. Casaretto’s report also hints to likely huge flows of money from the media empire the archbishopric set up and Suyapa Foundation, which manages the newspapers and televisions of the diocese, controls. As to Bishop Pineda, local newspapers pinpointed him recently as being the man who orchestrated reckless financial operations and the recipient of public funds (for as much as 1,2 million dollars) allegedly destined to obscure projects aimed at “training of the faithful to the values ​​and understanding laws and social life”. According to the accusers, these expenses were never supported by valid documentation. [Which tends to be the way these guys operate, especially when they need to pay off aggrieved former lovers or the outraged families of violated children. This would hardly be the first time vast resources intended for the good of souls have been misdirected by unworthy men to enable their corrupt and immoral lifestyles.]

The Vatican is worried also about the Court of Auditors of Honduras’ launching of an accounting probe on the Catholic diocese there between 2012 and 2014. The prosecutors at the Tribunal Superior de Cuentas want to see clear about the lawfulness of the projects for which the government transferred every year tens of millions of lempiras to the Foundation for Education and Social Communication, whose official representative is still Maradiaga. As of the time of writing — so in a letter from the prosecutors L’Espresso obtained — the church did not produce the records on assets and liabilities and expenditure documentations. [Stonewalling from post-Vatican II Church bureaucrats? Unthinkable!]

Leftism is religion for immoral people. As Saint Thomas Aquinas and many other great Saints and Fathers of the Church have warned us, heresy, especially from ecclesiastics, is always a cover for personal immorality, almost always involving sins against the 6th and 9th Commandments. Once a man convinces himself that Church Doctrine is false and his error is truth, that God has lied or the Church radically misunderstood, there is no end to the depths to which he will stoop. I am not at all surprised that a major progressive Church operator is facing accusations of corruption and immorality – I only sense that there are far, far more such instances of which we are unaware, due to deliberate complicity by a media intent on protecting its co-religionists and ideological allies.

What a catastrophe for souls. How terribly, terribly sad. Whether AA-1025 be true or not in all its details, I think it unmistakable that communists/leftists did undertake a deliberate program to penetrate the priesthood and fill it with ravening wolves. I think that effort is dying out, at least in North America, but we shall be stuck with the products of it for decades to come, and with its effects for even longer.

I certainly admire Michael Matt very much, and almost always agree with him, but I think he may have gotten a bit ahead of himself when he advances, at least to a degree, the idea that the fact that 3 bishops and one cardinal (including some emeriti), as of about 10 days ago, had signed onto the statement of the 3 bishops of Kazakhstan, led by the redoubtable Bishop Athanasius Schneider, which asserted their rejection of Francis’ attempt to gut Catholic moral belief by permitting constant, regularized sacrilege through reception of the Blessed Sacrament by the divorced and civilly remarried.

Whew……..that was a run on. Anyway, I’m all for Schneider’s statement, I’m all for the reaction, but what I am is doubtful that this will be even the beginning of some kind of generalized reaction among the hierarchy, or even the priesthood, against the apparent errors of the Franciscan porntificate (see what I did there?).

This is not the first such reaction. We’ve had the statement by priests that they would continue to teach the Church’s constant belief regarding marriage. That topped out at under 1000 priests, last time I looked, in spite of the over 400,000 active priests in ministry today. So, about 0.25% of priests took even this minimal stand. Likewise, the few hundred priests and theologians who signed the statement led by Dr. Joseph Shaw similarly accusing Francis of promoting heresy, probably constituting much less than one tenth of one percent of all the priests and theologians in the world today. And there was the Dubia, which only 4 Cardinals out of well nearly 200 endorsed.

There are over 4000 active bishops in the Church today. The fact that 7 have endorsed this effort, again, indicates a support of less than 0.2% of the hierarchy for this very necessary rebuttal toward the Bishop of Rome.

Look, once again, I personally endorse and support all these efforts, but I have been discouraged by the lack of support they receive from those with formal roles within the ecclesiastical structure. Just as the entire traditional movement is purported to consist of perhaps 1-1.5 million people worldwide, and thus constitutes barely a tenth of one percent of the supposed 1.2 billion Catholics in the world today (but since the number of actual, active, believing Catholics might be 1/10th that number, we do make up a much larger percentage of the “practical Church”), and the hierarchy has managed to, at most, successfully pigeonhole us off, I think they can just as easily keep ignoring that 0.1% or 0.2% of bishops, priests, theologians, or whatever as troublemakers, miscreants, neo-Pelagians, or whatever. Our numbers are simply too small, on the human level, to have any kind of impact. I think it would take something more like 60 or 70, maybe even 150-200, bishops signing onto the Kazakhstan statement before it would start to really make waves. Even 200 would not constitute even 5% of the episcopate, and note that this ratio does not include the number of emerati that are around today.

Realistically, traditional Catholics are about the same in number, and about as relevant, humanly speaking, as the “Old Catholics” were at the time of Vatican I. How much influence did the Old Catholics have on the Church at Vatican I, and how much have they had since (as they have fallen into neo-liberal, pseudo-protestant heresy and even blasphemy, aping the worst of the most extreme progressive sects)? God forbid the same should happen to traditional Catholics. I don’t believe it will.

I bring all this up not to be a pessimist but to inject some realism into the discussion. I have promoted every one of these actions – the priest’s statement of adherence to the Church’s moral doctrine, the filial correction, the dubia, and now this statement from Kazakhstan. I am happy to do so. Indeed, nothing would make me happier – in a sense – than to wake up tomorrow and read that 500 bishops had signed onto this new “Athanasian Creed.” At the same time, however, I think we need to be realistic, and not develop unfounded hopes. In addition, while the Truth and justice, I think, demand such firm correction from bishops and cardinals against any error taught in the Church from any source, I also recognize that the process of exposing the error and excising it from the Church could be incredibly painful – though surely, in every respect, the right, just, and necessary thing to do (like a painful and difficult operation, necessary to save a life, but something no one looks forward to).

I also know we need things to talk about, and that folks need encouragement from time to time. So I don’t take too much issue with the argument forwarded by Matt, I just wouldn’t stake a great deal of hope on it.

Cliches exist because they often serve as a sort of shorthand for truth, an often glib but also uncannily accurate description of a place, an event, a tendency, etc. Now, cliches can serve to represent and advance unfair bias, and often do, and they can badly misrepresent and miss vital nuance. But having said that, the cliche of the mean ‘ol trad Catholic is probably the dominant, knee jerk reaction we trads have to contend with. And, not entirely unfairly, it must probably be said.

How has this come about? Likewise, what about the trad cliche of the silly, far from groovy, get over the 60s hippy dippy happy clappy define your own truth Novus Ordo type? How true are these descriptions, and from where might they stem?

My new sole source for blogging material, Tumblar House, has some answers below, which I found pretty insightful. In this case, I thought Charles Coulombe’s confrere made perhaps the most insightful contribution – we trads/faithful Catholics are the product of long years of avoiding and overcoming constant deadly threats, both to ourselves and to our children – you think a few years of that might make someone a little reserved in charity and prone to pounce on perceived threats with maybe a bit more relish than absolutely necessary? And how about the rank failure of the hierarchy to define and defend Truth, so that laity have, by default, often had to step into this role? Think that might also have had some less than perfect fruit?

This short segment also provides a keen insight into that strange entity, the former devout pre-conciliar Catholic who now so loved the old Mass and all the old devotions, and now, as a septuagenarian or octogenarian finds them repellent. This person may or may not be a hippy casualty leftist, they may be quite orthodox in their Novus Ordo way, but they just viscerally hate the old Mass. How could that person, on an objective level, exist, when the TLM is so manifestly superior on practically every level possible? Well, they went through the incredibly jarring experience of being told by the Church, their Mother, that all they loved and held dear was not just far from ideal, but positively harmful/dangerous, and would be replaced by something “better.” I can’t imagine how painful that must have been, nor the depth of Faith those folks had, and have, to have seen them through that experience. That’s not to say their reactions, then or now, were always the right ones or even virtuous (mass contraceptive use, anyone?), but it does help to explain how these people came about. I think it hard for someone like me, who converted on the cusp of the 21st century, to comprehend just how obedient Catholics were in the 1960s, and the entire expectation of obedience that was woven into the fabric of Catholic lives at that time. That ethos, once such a cornerstone of the Faith (to an extent that m may have been excessive and even unhealthy, as natural as it was given the external attacks the Church faced from 1789-1958, say) has been one of the biggest casualties of the collapse of hierarchical authority since the “new springtime” of Vatican Il Duce.

Basically the Church is badly broken, probably in worse shape than she’s ever been, and that has left the sheep largely fending for themselves. We should not be surprised that under such circumstances, the laity would be left confused and even divided into hostile camps. This will persist, in my surmise, until the revolution that afflicted the Church in the 60s/70s (and today) is definitively rolled back, either by overt act or by slow submersion beneath a renewed authentic Catholicism.

I posted some videos yesterday from the Tumblar House video interviews of Charles Coulombe. Some folks liked the take Coulombe had on the difficult issue of the SSPX – in the video below, he tackles another very difficult issue, that of Fr. Feeney and his “excommunication.” Once again, Coulombe covers a complex matter with subtlety and panache. He rightly notes that if Feeney taught error, it would be very difficult to claim that many past popes, Saints, and Fathers did not similarly err. That’s not to say Feeney did no wrong. He may have gone a bit to excess in greatly diminishing the scope of baptism of desire, BUT at the same time the major thrust of his argument is one that cannot be rejected as false. That is to say, the process of condemning Feeney was abusive, in that there can’t be a dogmatic refutation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus without throwing out vast portions of the Doctrine of the Faith, and condemning numerous great Catholic theologians in the process.

Another important point brought up below is the extent to which Feeney’s belief has been misrepresented.

Perhaps this take might be a bit controversial but it aligns well with my own study of the matter. Like Coulombe, it’s not completely clear the extent to which Feeney formally taught error or was formally corrected for doing so, but I am certain that there has been a massive attempt, predating Vatican II by 20 years or more, to reduce Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus to meaninglessness, and that this move has played a primary role in practically neutering the Church’s grand 2000 year history of selfless evangelization:

Coulombe looks like he enjoys a good meal and a drink every now and then. My kind of guy.

Note the key role Benedict XVI plays in the fleshing out of this argument. That’s my main problem with the rejection of EENS in general and Father Feeney in particular – whatever the theological fine points, the major thrust has been the total gutting of the Church’s evangelization efforts AND a collapse in the lived Faith of tens of millions of Catholics, because the modern ecumaniacal approach that more or less everyone is saved, and in fact that one is essentially penalized by being a Catholic, has an impetuous internal logic that has eviscerated the great well of evangelical power the Church possessed until recent decades.

It is interesting to me how much venom is directed at Fr. Feeney and any perceived followers of the belief attributed to him, not by liberals, but by traditional Catholics. It’s the reverse of the obverse side of the coin that says “SSPX = schismatic” as a knee jerk reaction, where the trads turn around and say “Feeneyites = heretics,” though the juridical standing of Feeney’s actual teachings was never fully settled, unless you want to go with the opinion of the same ordinary, Cardinal Cushing, who a few years later deliberately conspired with Planned Murderhood to overcome Catholic legislative resistance to get contraception legalized in his archdiocese and state.

Here is the book Coulombe references in the Q&A. Seems like he rather strongly believes that the practical abjuration of EENS has played a vital role in the crisis in the Church. If you want a little peak behind the veil at the kind of tactics used by the neo-Cath crowd (a term of convenience I don’t really like), make sure to read the really abominable review by Karl Keating. Pure ad hominem – shocking, I know. But I’ve already been called – in effect – a no account scumbag almost certainly hiding some dire dark secret by Keating and his attack dog Shea for not broadcasting my “real name” on every post I make, though my name appears scores of times on this blog in various forms, so I have my own ax to grind, I suppose.

I’d appreciate reading your thoughts on Coulombe’s take on this subject.

“Christ of the Fishermen.” Reader LaGallina sent me the following description of a beautiful bit of Catholic culture, placed where the Brownsville Ship Channel meets the Gulf of Mexico (roughly).

From La Gallina:

The statue is called “el Cristo de los Pescadores” and is turned slightly to face the channel and greet the shrimp boats when they are coming back to shore. A Brownsville family brought this from Italy back in the 90s (I think) after they won a settlement with the shrimp boat company after their two sons were killed on the boat. They also hold a huge party on the grounds around the statue which includes a public rosary (with a gigantic rosary made by an elderly gent from Port Isabel), catered food for everyone (invited or not), fireworks, and of course the ever-present “matachines.” (Do you think the bishops before Vatican 2 had matachines dancers at their Catholic events?)

No, I don’t think so.

LaGallina also apprised me of Francis’ elevation of a Father Mario Alberto Aviles to be auxiliary Bishop of Brownsville. This is noteworthy for the fact that Fr. Aviles comes from the Oratory of St. Philip Neri, which operates one of the few “canonically regular” TLM in the Rio Grande Valley area (the only other one of which I am aware is at the Brownsville cathedral, if that one is still going. Perhaps LaGallina can confirm).

Bishop Daniel Flores of Brownsville is reputed to be pretty solidly orthodox and relatively friendly to the TLM. Coming from a branch of the Oratorians based mostly in northern Mexico which is widely known for its liturgical and doctrinal orthodoxy (though it is quite small), it may be hoped that Bishop-elect Aviles may increase this disposition even more. I know several readers who have assisted at the St. Jude Thaddeus parish in Pfarr administered by the Oratorians, and they all speak highly of the beautiful TLM and solid catechesis offered there.

However, it should be noted that Bishop-elect Aviles hasn’t been pastor of St. Jude Thaddeus for 15 years, so I cannot really speak to his personal qualities or adherence to tradition. I am told he seems down to earth and pretty solid overall.

Now, El Cristo de los Pescadores. Very nice:

Statues like this, and even entire parishes, have long been dedicated to Catholic mariners in major ports around the world. For my money, one of the most beautiful parishes in the world, Our Lady of Bon Succours in Montreal, has a heavy nautical emphasis and a close association with the maritime trades. Why, several of the Apostles including St. Peter were, of course, pescadores, themselves.

It’s another aspect of the still heartbreakingly deteriorating Catholic culture that deserves widespread revival. Good on the family for dedicating a lovely statue like this to the shrimpers and other seafarers of the south Texas coast.

Via Steve Skojec at One Peter Five comes a review of a short (141 pp) book on Francis, his seedy and troubling past life, his outlook, his philosophical and psychological shortcomings, and his disastrous agenda. The review is quite long, about 4000 words, so I’ll only hit some high points. In summation, however, the author of this book, who is anonymous (and has apparently caused a furious response in Rome and a search for his identity) but who goes by the deliciously Catholic name of Marcantonio Collona (the leader of the fleet of the Papal States at Lepanto), ties together much already known about Francis and his hard left agenda, while at the same time delving into his past and revealing a very great deal about Francis’ apparently nasty personality, his carefully crafted image as a great humble man (note the contradiction), and the mysterious twists and turns that led a man who was lambasted by his superiors in the post-conciliar Jesuit order as wholly unfit for high office (think about that) to become Pope. This naturally includes a great deal about the deceased Cardinal Martini, long-time leader of the leftist/anti-Catholic “Bologna School” of misfits and miscreants in the Church otherwise known as the “St. Gallen Mafia.”

The name of this new book is The Dictator Pope, and it is available for purchase online, but only in Kindle and similar e-formats. I look forward to purchasing the book once it is available in print, if a publisher can be found (and believe me, with this pontificate, that will not be an easy task).

Taking up with some excerpts from Skojec’s review:

The book promises a look “behind the mask” of Francis, the alleged “genial man of the people,” revealing how he “consolidated his position as a dictator who rules by fear and has allied himself with the most corrupt elements in the Vatican to prevent and reverse the reforms that were expected of him.” [Indeed. Whatever happened to the reform of the Vatican Bank (IOR), or the advancing of even stiffer penalties and interdictions against abusive priests, or men unsuited to the priesthood due to their addiction to perversion, or the financial reform of numerous corrupt Roman ministries, especially those associated with the disgustingly corrupt Cardinal Angelo Sodano and the entire group of high prelates and curial officials who were given enormous graft from Maciel Maciel to cover up his hideous abuses and double life? And these barely scratch the surface. In point of fact, after battling mightily to undo the tremendous power Sodano had accumulated under Pope JPII, Benedict has had to live to see this wholly corrupt and heterodox creature not just restored to his former power and influence, but perhaps more influential than ever. These are the kinds of creatures Francis has chosen to surround himself with, since they will OK any ideological agenda so long as their nests continue to be feathered.]

The book promises a look “behind the mask” of Francis, the alleged “genial man of the people,” revealing how he “consolidated his position as a dictator who rules by fear and has allied himself with the most corrupt elements in the Vatican to prevent and reverse the reforms that were expected of him.”

OnePeterFive has obtained an advance copy of the English text, and I am still working my way through it. Although most of its contents will be at least cursorily familiar to those who have followed this unusual pontificate, it treats in detail many of the most important topics we have covered in these pages, providing the additional benefit of collecting them all in one place.

The author of the work is listed as Marcantonio Colonna — a transparently clever pen name laden with meaning for the Catholic history buff; the historical Colonna was an Italian nobleman who served as admiral of the papal fleet at the Battle of Lepanto. His author bio tells us he is an Oxford graduate with extensive experience in historical research who has been living in Rome since the beginning of the Francis pontificate, and whose contact with Vatican insiders — including Cardinals and other important figures — helped piece together this particular puzzle. The level of potential controversy associated with the book has seemingly led some journalists in Rome to be wary of broaching the book’s existence publicly (though it is said to be very much a topic of private conversation), whether for fear of retribution — the Vatican has recently been known to exclude or mistreat journalists it suspects of hostility — or for some other reason, remains unclear. Notable exceptions to this conspicuous silence include the stalwart Marco Tosatti — who has already begun unpacking the text at his website, Stilum Curae — and Professor Roberto de Mattei, who writes that the book confirms Cardinal Müller’s recent remarks that there is a “magic circle” around the pope which “prevents an open and balanced debate on the doctrinal problems raised” by objections like the dubia and Filial Correction, and that there is also “a climate of espionage and delusion” in Francis’ Vatican.

Some sources have even told me that the Vatican, incensed by the book’s claims, is so ardently pursuing information about the author’s true identity that they’ve been seeking out and badgering anyone they think might have knowledge of the matter. The Italian version of the book’s website has already gone down since its launch. The reason, as one particularly credible rumor has it, is that its disappearance was a result of the harassment of its designer, even though that person had nothing to do with the book other than having been hired to put it online.

If these sound like thuggish tactics, the book wastes no time in confirming that this pope — and those who support him — are not at all above such things. Colonna introduces his text by way of an ominous portrait of Francis himself, describing a “miraculous change that has taken over” Bergoglio since his election — a change that Catholics of his native Buenos Aires noticed immediately:

Their dour, unsmiling archbishop was turned overnight into the smiling, jolly Pope Francis, the idol of the people with whom he so fully identifies. If you speak to anyone working in the Vatican, they will tell you about the miracle in reverse. When the publicity cameras are off him, Pope Francis turns into a different figure: arrogant, dismissive of people, prodigal of bad language and notorious for furious outbursts of temper which are known to everyone from the cardinals to the chauffeurs.

Colonna writes, too, of the “buyer’s remorse” that some of the cardinals who elected Bergoglio are experiencing as his pontificate approaches its fifth anniversary: “Francis is showing,” writes Colonna, “that he is not the democratic, liberal ruler that the cardinals thought they were electing in 2013, but a papal tyrant the like of whom has not been seen for many centuries.” [Gee, a hardcore leftist ideologue who is also an out and out tyrant. Who would have known? I thought these Vaticanistas and high cardinals were political sharpshooters? How could they be so naïve? Maybe they are not so sharp as they like to think.]

Colonna then transitions to an opening chapter exposing the work of the so-called St. Gallen “Mafia” — the group of cardinals who had been conspiring for decades to see to it that a pope of their liking — a pope like Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was capable of becoming — would be elected. Formed in 1996 (with precursor meetings between progressive European prelates giving initial shape to the group as early as the 1980s) in St. Gallen, Switzerland [notice how leftists, supposed friends of the common/downtrodden man, always seem to ensconce themselves in luxury when given the chance], the St. Gallen Mafia was originally headed up by the infamous late archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini. The group roster was a rogue’s gallery of heterodox prelates with a list of ecclesiastical accomplishments that reads more like a rap sheet than a curriculum vitae. (In the case of Godfried Danneels, implicated in some way in about 50 of 475 dossiers on clerical sexual abuse allegations that mysteriously disappeared after evidence seized by Belgian police was inexplicably declared inadmissible in court, this comparison transcends analogy.)[Yep. Look, the Leftists in the Church thought they were electing a fellow-traveler, at least, in naming a relatively unknown from Poland – a product of the sainted “Ostpolitik “ of Paul VI – as pope in 1978. But he turned out to be much more conservative (relatively) than they wished. So they began an illicit, illegal (in Church law) conspiracy, basically, to make sure a pope to their liking would be elected after JPII. They didn’t quite succeed in 2005, but managed to send Benedict XVI running for fear of the wolves (under threat of the financial ruination of the Church?) and finally got their man in 2013. The fact that any such collusion prior to an enclave automatically invalidates that enclave AND results in the excommunication of the participants didn’t bother them a whit. Why would it? They’d have the power if their man got in, and the media would always have their back if they didn’t. It was low-risk for them. And since when has a pontiff had the stones to cast out large swaths of the episcopate for being heretics/schismatics, anyway? The last time was 1908-10, wasn’t it?]

The names of some of the most prominent members of the group — many of which would have been unknown to even relatively well-informed Catholics just a decade ago — have become uncomfortably familiar in recent years: Cardinals Martini, Danneels, Kasper, Lehman, and (Cormac) Murphy O’Connor have all risen in profile considerably since their protege was elevated to the Petrine throne. After a controversial career, Walter Kasper had already begun fading into obscurity before he was unexpectedly praised in the new pope’s first Angelus address on March 17, 2013. Francis spoke admiringly of Kasper’s book on the topic of mercy — a theme that would become a defining touchstone of his pontificate. When Kasper was subsequently tapped to present the Keynote at the February 14, 2014 consistory of cardinals, the advancement of his proposal to create a path for Communion for the divorced and remarried thrust him further into the spotlight. The so-called “Kasper proposal” launched expectations for the two synods that would follow on marriage and the family and provided the substrate for the post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, around which there has been a theological and philosophical debate the likes of which has not seen in the living memory of the Church. For his part, Danneels, who retired his position as Archbishop of Brussels under “a cloud of scandal” in 2010, even went so far as to declare that the 2013 conclave result represented for him “a personal resurrection experience.” [What kind of creature would frame anything like that, let alone the election of a pope, and most of all, this pope? Oh, right, the same kind of man that would at least cover up, if not directly participate in, mass boy rape for decades]

And what was the goal of the St. Gallen group?

Originally, their agenda was to bring about a “much more modern” Church. That goal finally crystalized around opposition to the anticipated election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the papacy — a battle in which they were narrowly defeated during the 2005 conclave, when, according to an undisclosed source within the curia, the penultimate ballot showed a count of 40 votes for Bergoglio and 72 for Ratzinger. Colonna cites German Catholic journalist Paul Badde in saying that it was the late Cardinal Joachim Meisner — later one of the four “dubia” cardinals — who “passionately fought” the Gallen Mafia in favor of the election of Ratzinger. After this loss, the Gallen Mafia officially disbanded. But although Cardinal Martini died in 2012, they staged a comeback — and eventually won the day — on Wednesday, March 13, 2013. For it was on that day that Jorge Mario Bergoglio stepped out onto the loggia of St. Peter’s Basilica, victorious, as Pope Francis the First. Those paying attention would take note that one Cardinal Godfried Danneels of Belgium stood triumphantly by his side.

———-End Excerpt————-

There is much more at the link, but I’ve taken too much already. Skojec will take a tire iron to my shooting hand if I take anymore.

But he goes into quite a bit about Francis’ emulation of his youthful political paramour, Juan Perón, and how, aside from a sort of reflexive populist leftism, little informed that man’s career save for his own lust for power. Readers should take from this a cold shot of reality against any hopes that Franky George Bergoglio will follow his predecessor into abdication. Quite the contrary, having access to power will probably lengthen his life by 5-10 years. That’s how these things seem to go. Look at finally deposed 94 year old Robert Mugabe.

Also reviewed are the synods, which I would argue were doctrinally meaningless, and the subsequent deconstruction of the Church’s moral edifice through Amoris Laetitia.

My wife and kids were in the first one last year. I’m sure they’ll be there again for this 3 mile pilgrimage across Irving to the campus of the University of Dallas:

Do call Julie if you can help with shuttle driving. Bring your Marian flags, your banners, make this a work of witness! i cannot attend, I will be at work and am using my last unused vacation day for the Immaculate Conception.

I’ve been intending to return this blog’s focus to the Dallas Diocese, more as it was in the beginning as I head toward the 8th anniversary of these little rants of mine, so here is another list of the many upcoming events this December at Mater Dei FSSP parish:

Since the Feast of the Immaculate Conception falls on a Friday and is a 1st Class Feast, eating meat is allowed, yes?